Full details are available in the attached PDF: Download Now

1. Leave of absence was granted to Ajit Rai.

2. Minutes of the 4th meeting of the RdC held on 28 May 2025 were read and approved.

3. The RdC welcomed Sanjay Kher and Rajesh Krishna to the committee. They were updated briefly on the developments thus far.

4. The RdC was informed that there was agreement on the Rules governing the RdC and the MC. A few factual but non-material corrections were being made before the final signing, expected the next day. The signed document would then be circulated to all members.

5. KN Padmanabhan (Pammu) was invited to be a permanent non-voting member of the RdC. He accepted the invitation and joined the meeting.

6. Rajesh Krishna suggested valuing the property first and then negotiating with developers. He outlined alternate approaches for handling the redevelopment project, emphasizing maximising the value of the property. After a brief discussion, the RdC requested Rajesh to make a full formal presentation of his ideas at a subsequent meeting.

7. The meeting agreed that new ideas such as those proposed by Rajesh are important and should be evaluated thoroughly. Other members with constructive ideas would also be encouraged. These explorations would run parallel to ongoing work on the current tenders and bids.

8. Rajesh also suggested using additional external professionals to support the redevelopment process, including detailed examination of bids, evaluation of bidders and obtaining market intelligence. Given the urgency and the slow pace of the current PMC, Dhargalkar, the RdC agreed that additional professional help may be necessary.

9. In line with the above, the RdC resolved that the MC and RdC should work together to shortlist and engage external consultants. The MC should invite the RdC to participate in all discussions regarding such consultants, including inviting, shortlisting, selecting and defining terms of reference.

10. Mahesh Vyas read out the Case for Opinion sent by the Hon. Secretary to Advocates Makrand Gandhi & Co. He sought members’ views on possible actions under different scenarios. Pammu explained that the Case for Opinion was broader in scope than necessary, but the broader framing could still help in decision making.

11. The RdC decided to advise the MC that, irrespective of the advocate’s advice, the new tender should be restricted to the 25 entities that had purchased the tender document previously. The reasoning was as follows:
    a. The issue was not the number of purchasers (25 was reasonable), but the low number of valid bids. The focus should be on encouraging more bids from the existing purchasers.
    b. Increasing the number of purchasers may appear harmless but could increase legal risks and delay the process.
    c. Time is critical, and limiting the tender to the original 25 will likely produce faster results without compromising on legal or procedural safety.
    d. Most top developers had already purchased the tender document. The 25 include reputable names, adequate for securing good bids in the second round.
    e. Opening the tender to new entities would make the process significantly longer.

12. The RdC decided to study the PMC’s comparison of the current bids and to meet Mr. Dhargalkar at a suitable time.

13. Some tentative timelines were discussed with Pammu. These are indicative only:
    a. The legal opinion was expected by the end of the current week (31 May 2025), but this timeline has slipped. The new expectation is 4 June 2025.
    b. If the legal advice is clear and actionable, the new tender may be floated by 10 June 2025, with bids accepted until 20 June 2025.

These are expectations, not final decisions.